~ A Blog on the Lands of the Bible

Thread Between Me and Jim West

I happen to admit I do not like Jim West. This is only partially due to the fact Jim West does not like me, and is more due to Jim’s long line of deleted blogs than anything else. As anyone who knows anything about Jim West knows, Jim West does not like self-described atheists. Thus, the following (note that Jim West changes blog themes every half-hour and deletes his blog every two years-don’t expect the above link to work after 2013; see backup here). My reply was meant to cover the lack of difference between atheists and agnostics, the meaning of the phrase “separation of religion and state”, and the consistency of my online identity. My reply to Dan is that adults in power don’t believe in Santa; thus, the only worrisome thing about Santa is his negative effect on the children of North American nations (and the U.K. and its territories). YHWH, however, is believed in by at least three quarters of the legislature of the most powerful nation in the world. Thus, the unholy (but good?) alliance between the U.S. and the world’s only majority Jewish state.

Share:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

19 thoughts on “Thread Between Me and Jim West”

A person who doesn’t believe God exists challenges a person who believes in a nonexistent god. No clear winner possible in this one. By the way, if (& I don’t believe this to be true, but for the sake of discussion) 3/4’s of the U.S. government believes in the equivalent of Santa as their moral compass, why would you (an intelligent atheist) want to live here & support that government (assuming you pay taxes) when there are plenty of other countries governed by atheists (or non-Yahwists using your terminology)?

Largest economy among all the nations of the world. Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech and press (originally, from the federal government, thanks to 20th-century Supreme Court decisions, from local government as well). Lingua franca of the world is the first language of the vast majority of the population. High standard of living. No official religion. Even if every single person in that country “believe[d] in the equivalent of Santa as their moral compass”, it would still be a fantastic place to live in.

Your original comment was that “religionists constantly keep trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”

1) Can you cite a specific example to support that statement?

2) If I believe murder is good to promote my evolutionary species or help my street-gang prosper, would you join me in supporting the effort to legalize murder, or would you want your belief that murder is wrong protected by government affairs (i.e., the law)?

1) Sure. Specific examples may be found by looking around here. A good specific example is Does v. Enfield.

2) What do you mean by “murder”? I’m not quite sure how malicious killing presently prohibited by U.S. law would promote the human species, but such an idea is not completely ludicrous. If it’s just for your street gang, I would not join you. I do not consider ‘murder’ to be ‘wrong’ per se, but, as I have no present intention of gaining anything from any form of murder, and I might potentially lose quite a bit were all ‘murder’ legalized, I am not in favor of legalizing all forms of what is considered ‘murder’. I am, however, in favor of legalizing some forms of what is considered ‘murder’ in some states of the U.S.A., such as some forms of physician-assisted suicide.

On this first challenge, you failed. The example you gave, DvE, is about a board of public school directors choosing to hold their non-Christian graduation ceremonies at a “religionist” church building. If anything, it’s an example of the exact opposite of your charge (i.e., a government-funded organization pushing their affair into a Christian building). The ACLU made it a more-direct government affair by bringing the issue to a court.

I let you off easy because I only asked for 1 specific example, whereas you specified a frequency of “constantly“. You provided a Google link to the ACLU w/ keyword “Jesus”, yet none of the top-10 results support your charge:

1) The ACLU’s support for the Just For Jesus Challenge Homeless Outreach after they were shut down by the government. The opposite of your charge.

2) The judicial ruling affirming the ACLU’s charge for Jehovah’s Witnesses to conduct door-to-door ministry in Puerto Rico. The opposite of your charge.

4) A South Carolina school’s Christian social event at their facility. Allowing a Christian concert at a public school no more supports your charge than allowing students to wear Christian T-shirts. To avoid legal costs, the school board agreed to a consent decree in which they would begin discriminating against events based on religion. Thank you ACLU. If anything, this was an example of the ACLU acting on behalf of an atheist (the son of Jonathan Anderson) to push their religious belief into a government affair (the court system).

5) This is what happens when you do sloppy research. This link, the City of Chicago vs. Jesus Morales (the defeat of an anti-gang loitering law), does not support your charge.

6) The ACLU was awarded court fees for arguing that a courthouse should remove a portrait of Jesus. Court officials merely added portraits of other lawgivers. If anything, this supports the belief that courts are historically related to the giving of laws. Is that a crime?

7) A commentary on the lack of Christian symbolism in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. Again, sloppy research; does not support your charge.

8) A case of a student being suspended for 10 days for displaying an anti-Christian sign. Again, the ACLU pushed this anti-Christian belief into a government affair. The opposite of your charge.

9) A commentary on ACLU activities. Another sloppy-research example that does not support your charge.

10) An example of the ACLU promoting an anti-Christian religious belief. Ditto.

I’m not obligated to do your research for you, & frankly expected better bases to support a belief you’re passionate about. I’d encourage you to see if you can actually justify your original statement; & if you can’t, I hope your mind is open to adopting a more objective position on this issue.

Regarding my 2nd challenge, what I meant by “murder” is irrelevant at this point because you answered my question by indirectly admitting that the basis for your belief is whether you’d be “gaining anything from” it. In essence, if you’re in a movie theater, & everybody else gets shot/killed except you, you’d finish watching the film, casually walk out of the theater & go home as if nothing happened. If, when you got home, you discovered that your YouTube comments had been deleted, you’d be upset, & record a video condemning the act as “nonsensical” & “simply stupid”.

The example you gave, DvE, is about a board of public school directors

-Were these public school directors “religionist”? Almost certainly.

choosing to hold their non-Christian graduation ceremonies

-Which are surely “government affairs”.

at a “religionist” church building.

-Exactly. I consider this to be a perfect example of “religionists (public school directors)… trying to push the Christian god (by means of setting the below-mentioned “government affair” in a Christian church building) into government affairs (a graduation ceremony).”

If anything, it’s an example of the exact opposite of your charge (i.e., a government-funded organization pushing their affair into a Christian building). The ACLU made it a more-direct government affair by bringing the issue to a court.

-I spoke of “religionists”, not religious organizations. I agree with you that DvE is an example of “a government-funded organization (with plenty of religionists within its ranks) pushing their affair into a Christian building (with consent of the owners of the building)”, but I do not see how this is “the exact opposite of [my] charge”. What would, for you, count as an example of “religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”? Is mandatory school prayer to the Christian god an example? You have already characterized “a South Carolina school’s Christian social event at their facility” to be equivalent to “allowing students to wear Christian T-shirts”, even though, as the ACLU states,

A school-sponsored performance of this nature would be unconstitutional [note from pithom: I do not necessarily agree with this assessment] by itself, but the list of transgressions doesn’t stop there. The video shows event organizers being instructed to pray with students before they return to classes. And as part of the assembly, a preacher, Christian Chapman, delivers a sermon to students. His message? “A relationship with Jesus is what you need, more important than anything else.”

If this is not an example of “religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”, I don’t know what is!

I let you off easy because I only asked for 1 specific example, whereas you specified a frequency of “constantly“… I’m not obligated to do your research for you

-Correct, which is why I did not obligate you to do my research for me. I gave you what I considered at the time to be what you asked for (a specific example to support my statement), and what I already knew at the time to be a grab-bag of relevant and irrelevant information which I considered (and still consider) to be a good resource for examples of “religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”.

Almost? Does that mean you don’t know? You’re not sure? You have no proof? Confidence problem [chuckle]? All of the above? I for one am certainly not certain the people who made the decision were attempting to push anything other than a graduation ceremony into the most practical building. Each person involved in the decision would have to make a formal public announcement of their intention for me to believe their motive matches your charge. If you have any evidence (3rd-party opinions wouldn’t impress me), feel free to share it with me so I can admit you have at least one example to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, I hope you’ll admit you’re just engaging in wishful thinking. Just because there are presents under a tree on Christmas morning, it doesn’t mean that Santa flew there overnight from the North Pole on a reindeer-sled! Yet that’s precisely your flow of flawed logic.

If having a graduation ceremony in a building with religious icons violates the Constitution, why hasn’t the ACLU filed lawsuits against the Supreme Court justices, House of Representatives, Senate, & Librarian of Congress for the religious icons in their respective buildings? Why haven’t they brought charges against the current US president (or any US president) for expressing his Christian views (on public TV networks no less!) while on the public payroll? Why doesn’t the ACLU file a lawsuit against all local governments for allowing places of worship in public locations where New Atheists might experience mental anguish & distress? It’s because they’re irrational, & have no basis for their position. If the ACLU were consistent they’d seek to outlaw all places of worship in cities where public schools exist. Why should our separated-from-religion-by-an-imaginary-wall government allow children to be exposed to those places at any time? Isn’t the government in charge of all that territory?

Allowing students to wear Christian T-shirts is no different than allowing students to wear Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga T-shirts. Allowing something doesn’t make it mandatory/compulsory, though it may be irresponsible &/or in poor taste &/or interfere with the ability of other students to concentrate.

“The video shows event organizers being instructed to pray with students before they return to classes.”

Lie. The exact words in the video are, “…you can go with them, someone can pray with you, then could take down some more information to make sure that you’re plugged into a church…”

Notice the use of the words “can” & “could” as opposed to you “must” or “will” at a voluntary-attendance event (i.e., not a formal class where students are graded). Which violates the Constitution: allowing children to hear an unabridged speech, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion? On the other hand, teachers in mandatory-attendance, graded classes regularly tell students “life evolved from non-life” & “humans evolved from apes”. Those are religious beliefs expressed by teachers using intimidating tactics (i.e. test scores).

I cannot give you an example of a religionist pushing Christianity into government affairs because from my perspective, everybody is a religionist (responsible or irresponsible), so every intentional human action has a root-cause related to a religious decision, & those decisions should stand/fall on their own merits. Our Constitution was made only for a moral & religious people. You are the one who believes Christians are guilty of violating some imaginary law protecting unbiased citizens (i.e., atheists) from religious decisions & religious expressions, so you’re under obligation to support your claim, & you failed. Laws & government mean nothing to anyone whose highest purpose in life is personal gain.

Almost? Does that mean you don’t know? You’re not sure? You have no proof? Confidence problem [chuckle]? All of the above? I for one am certainly not certain the people who made the decision were attempting to push anything other than a graduation ceremony into the most practical building. Each person involved in the decision would have to make a formal public announcement of their intention for me to believe their motive matches your charge. If you have any evidence (3rd-party opinions wouldn’t impress me), feel free to share it with me so I can admit you have at least one example to substantiate your claim.

Looking at the DvE ruling (especially pages 180-82, 192-195 in the link just above), it seems (to me, at least) the decision to hold the 2010 graduation ceremony at First Cathedral was more the result of lobbying by the Family Institute of Connecticut than a result of considerations of cost. According to the FIC’s website,

The vision of the Family Institute of Connecticut is to see citizens, institutions and government acknowledge and encourage the vital role of the family and to once again see the Judeo-Christian principles that are articulated in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, re-employed in our society and its public policy.

-Needless to say, there are no exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. By cost considerations alone, Springfield Symphony Hall would have been the best choice for the schools to hold their graduation ceremony (though, as I have limited information on this matter, I cannot be anywhere near certain whether it would be overall more or less suitable than First Cathedral). I concede your point that it is not absolutely certain First Cathedral was not the best choice for the Enfield&Fermi High Schools to hold their graduation ceremony. I still consider FIC’s lobbying to be a blatant example of “religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”. I still find your standard of evidence quite unreasonable (prices and accommodations are much less prone to being false than mere “formal public announcement[s]”).

If having a graduation ceremony in a building with religious icons violates the Constitution, why hasn’t the ACLU filed lawsuits against the Supreme Court justices, House of Representatives, Senate, & Librarian of Congress for the religious icons in their respective buildings? Why haven’t they brought charges against the current US president (or any US president) for expressing his Christian views (on public TV networks no less!) while on the public payroll? Why doesn’t the ACLU file a lawsuit against all local governments for allowing places of worship in public locations where New Atheists might experience mental anguish & distress? It’s because they’re irrational, & have no basis for their position. If the ACLU were consistent they’d seek to outlaw all places of worship in cities where public schools exist. Why should our separated-from-religion-by-an-imaginary-wall government allow children to be exposed to those places at any time? Isn’t the government in charge of all that territory?

-It is mandated in the U.S. Constitution that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. A government official speaking in support of religion is legally acceptable as such pro-religion actions by government officials are considered actions representing personal, not governmental, views. I am not certain whether or not the ACLU has brought lawsuits regarding the matters of religious icons in federal buildings in Washington DC, but I can guess that if they did so, they would have been met with either the “this religious icon is a part of a secular display” argument the “this religious icon has a secular purpose” argument, or, alternatively, the ever-menacing “ceremonial deism is a-okay” argument. Government permission of the practice of religion within the territory it effectively loans to others is hardly equivalent to government promotion of the practice of religion on property controlled solely by the relevant government and its representatives.

Allowing students to wear Christian T-shirts is no different than allowing students to wear Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga T-shirts. Allowing something doesn’t make it mandatory/compulsory, though it may be irresponsible &/or in poor taste &/or interfere with the ability of other students to concentrate.

-Agreed.

Notice the use of the words “can” & “could” as opposed to you “must” or “will” at a voluntary-attendance event (i.e., not a formal class where students are graded).

-There were some unambiguous non-suggestive pro-religion statements spoken and written (e.g., the fake money given to the students) at that rally. The statement “A relationship with Jesus is what you need more importantly than anything else” contains no hint of mere suggestion within it. Where did you get the idea this was a voluntary attendance event? While students were certainly not graded at that rally, it was held during the school day, and I do not know of any alternative activities the students at that rally could participate in. Besides, the school’s hosting of this rally was certainly a pro-religion action prohibited by U.S. law.

Which violates the Constitution: allowing children to hear an unabridged speech, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion? On the other hand, teachers in mandatory-attendance, graded classes regularly tell students “life evolved from non-life” & “humans evolved from apes”. Those are religious beliefs expressed by teachers using intimidating tactics (i.e. test scores).

-I cannot answer the question you present to me since I do not consider proselytizing to schoolchildren on government property (as distinguished from property effectively loaned by a government to so-called private owners) to be a form of “free exercise of religion”. Would you consider Islamic or Sikh proselytizing on government property to be an example of “free exercise of religion”? If religious beliefs are to be distinguished from non-religious beliefs, abiogenesis and human evolution are fairly obviously non-religious beliefs. However, you probably consider this distinction to be nonexistent (correct me if I’m wrong).

I cannot give you an example of a religionist pushing Christianity into government affairs because from my perspective, everybody is a religionist (responsible or irresponsible), so every intentional human action has a root-cause related to a religious decision, & those decisions should stand/fall on their own merits.

-If you mean that even a hypothetical example of my charge is an impossibility, why did you ask me for an example of what you consider to be impossible? If not, can you give even a hypothetical example of ‘religionists constantly trying to push the Christian god into government affairs’?

You are the one who believes Christians are guilty of violating some imaginary law protecting unbiased citizens (i.e., atheists) from religious decisions & religious expressions, so you’re under obligation to support your claim, & you failed.

The “imaginary law” you are speaking of is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. While I think the Supreme Court interpretation of this clause (and the whole “incorporation doctrine”) is nonsensical, I still find both worthy of support. Also, this “imaginary law” does not protect anyone from religious expression, but only concerns the religious expression of those acting as a representative of a government of the U.S.

”…the decision to hold [it] at First Cathedral was more the result of lobbying by the [FIC] than a result of considerations of cost.”

Are you arguing that the decisions to hold the ceremonies there in previous years were the result of FIC’s 2010 lobbying? Did they have a time-travel machine? Or was the FIC’s 2010 involvement a result of the ACLU’s 2009 threats?

“…there are no exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.”

Sorry, but I would argue that there were no other bases from which the framers would’ve had reason to use all the terms “God”, “Creator”, “Supreme Judge of the world”, “Year of our Lord” (dating specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ). What is your basis for believing an atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or Native American inspired those words? Have you no understanding of the J-C Bible’s overwhelming popularity/familiarity at that time? If not, look up “Aitken Bible”.

“I still consider FIC’s lobbying to be a blatant example of ‘religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.’ I still find your standard of evidence quite unreasonable.”

Unreasonable? Have you ever attempted to defend the concept of Neutrality? Do you really believe that any court decision can result in a neutral outcome? All it can do is adjust or shift the tension of beliefs. The impossibility of Neutrality is obvious from macroscopic & microscopic analyses of our physical world (a neutron only refers to the sum of opposing internal forces), yet it’s amazing how many otherwise-intelligent people believe it can be achieved in social affairs.

“…pro-religion actions by government officials are considered [legally acceptable] actions representing personal, not governmental, views.”

But if public-school board members cast personal votes to hold a secular ceremony at a pro-religion building, abracadabra! Presto/chango! It suddenly becomes an illegal governmental, not personal action? Sorry, but in philosophy we call that Special Pleading.

“Government permission of the practice of religion … is hardly equivalent to government promotion…”

So you agree that if public-school board members decide to permit a graduation ceremony to be held in a cathedral, it’s okay as long as they don’t promote the practice of religion during the ceremony? Now, all you have to do to prove your original point is to show that the students were forced to practice a particular religious act. Go for it, my friend!

“…the fake money given to the students…

Were they forced to take it & forced read it, or was it available to them as the result of a legally acceptable action by government officials representing personal, not governmental, views?

“…I do not know of any alternative activities the students at that rally could participate in…

I don’t know of any penalties established for children who don’t attend rallies! Are you going to argue that children in public schools are never free to skip a school event? Never free to ignore a teacher? Never free to daydream during a graded class?

“…I do not consider proselytizing to schoolchildren on government property to be a form of ‘free exercise of religion’.”

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one since you & I have different understandings of the word “free”! Yours requires an arbitrarily chosen restriction (your preference for Atheism over Christianity); mine has no restrictions (assuming that the exercise thereof doesn’t violate the same 1st Amendment; for example, a religion that requires human sacrifices &/or the killing of anyone espousing another religion would violate the rights of those victims to free speech, peaceably assemble, & petition). And yes, I consider Islamic or Sikh proselytizing on government property to be an example of “free exercise of religion”. Proselytizing may be annoying, but it’s not a crime.

In case you’re wondering, I don’t believe public schools should exist. Nothing in the Constitution suggests our government should be directly involved in it (or unemployment compensation, healthcare, the automotive industry, etc.). It needs to be stopped just as slavery had to be stopped.

“If religious beliefs are to be distinguished from non-religious beliefs, abiogenesis and human evolution are fairly obviously non-religious beliefs.”

No. There are distinct religions, but Science falls under the umbrella of Religion since it’s an objective discipline, which cannot be distinguished as religious or non-religious (unlike art/music appreciation, which is purely subjective, so that’s why we can hold opinions on whether certain paintings & songs are religious or non-religious). It’s possible & valid to perform a scientific experiment & report observations; however that’s all meaningless until you apply a particular religious interpretation to it. I’ll be glad to elaborate on this if you want the conversation to go there.

“…why did you ask me for an example of what you consider to be impossible?”

From my position, it’s valid to ask you to defend yours. God encourages us (via 1The 5:21) to test all things, so that freedom allows hypothetical impossibilities such as stating A = not A (simultaneously in the same context). You’re arguing from a perspective I know is philosophically defective; whereas I’m arguing from a logical, internally consistent perspective. My goal is to lead you to a point where you’ll be able to see your problem, so you’ll be motivated to abandon your fallacious position in exchange for the truth. This is known proverbially as giving your opponent rope to hang himself (cf. Pro 26:5).

I’ll have to temporarily suspend my normally humble attitude, but for clarity my original question would’ve been: From your philosophically irrational perspective, can you cite a specific example to support your original statement about religionists, in which case you’ll first have to prove that non-religionists exist, which I know you can’t do? Just because someone doesn’t know which religion they espouse doesn’t mean they’re non-religious. Just because someone doesn’t think they’ve broken a law or committed a fallacy doesn’t mean they haven’t.

“…can you give even a hypothetical example of ‘religionists constantly trying to push the Christian god into government affairs’?”

No (per Pro 26:4), because Jesus Christ provided the basis for our Constitution by creating us & giving us “certain unalienable Rights”, so He’s always been there & can only be duly affirmed or unrighteously ignored. Can you give me an example of pushing something into something it’s already in without first stipulating that A = not A?

Regarding the Establishment Clause, I’m glad we agree that the Supreme Court’s interpretation is nonsensical. While I support our government by paying taxes, I’m obligated to remind it that it exists because we the people allowed it to exist (under God), & we the people will continue to fight it when it’s wrong (against God). Every action of every U.S. government employee is a religious expression, whether individually or collectively (on a school board), because by accepting their job, they acknowledge that they’re subject & subservient to God’s authority.

Are you arguing that the decisions to hold the ceremonies there in previous years were the result of FIC’s 2010 lobbying? Did they have a time-travel machine?

-I should have made myself more clear. No, I am not arguing the FIC had a time machine, and I understand and provisionally accept the reasons for holding graduation ceremonies in First Cathedral before 2010.

Or was the FIC’s 2010 involvement a result of the ACLU’s 2009 threats?

-Possibly, but it does not matter either way. I still consider FIC’s lobbying to be a blatant example of “religionists… trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.”.

Sorry, but I would argue that there were no other bases from which the framers would’ve had reason to use all the terms “God”, “Creator”, “Supreme Judge of the world”, “Year of our Lord” (dating specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ). What is your basis for believing an atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or Native American inspired those words? Have you no understanding of the J-C Bible’s overwhelming popularity/familiarity at that time? If not, look up “Aitken Bible”.

I was thinking “Deist”. The only real Christian phrase in either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is the “Year of our Lord” in the Constitution, which is not a part of any article of the Constitution, but is simply a part of a record of where (done in Convention), by whose consent (by the Unanimous Consent of the States present) and when (the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth) the Constitution was adopted. The “Year of our Lord” looks to be merely a common manner of dating, as the “year of the common era” manner of dating had not acquired its present popularity by the late 18th century. The usage of “in the Year of our Lord” in place of “in the Year of the common era” is also supported by some prominent atheists, among them Richard Carrier, and is, thus, not an exclusively Judeo-Christian principle. Even I use the “AD” abbreviation on this blog on occasion! What does reasonability have to do with neutrality? When personal beliefs become actions representing the views of a government, they become actions representing the views of a government. I do not see how that is special pleading. The students whose 2010 graduation ceremony was held in First Cathedral were not forced to participate in a religious act. As there was no hint of disclaimer I know of with the fake money, I assume the fake money was effectively used to represent local government views. The mere endorsement of religion without a secular purpose by a U.S. federal, state, or local government body is viewed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and as a horrendous misuse of tax money by me.

Are you going to argue that children in public schools are never free to skip a school event? Never free to ignore a teacher? Never free to daydream during a graded class?

-I see in that statement a conflation of practical and legal freedom. I doubt students are legally free to skip school events without a parent’s excuse. I also doubt any high school student in America is not practically free to buy some substances they are not legally free to buy. If the students who participated in the rally did not have any other event they were allowed by the school to go to, that would make the effective government endorsement of religion that went on at New Heights Middle School an even more horrendous misuse of tax money than if the students did have alternative events they could go to.

You seem to have a very expansive definition of religion, one which includes scientific inferences and makes my claim that “religionists constantly keep trying to push the Christian god into government affairs.” nonsensical. Can you describe what that definition is?

“Possibly, but it does not matter either way. I still consider FIC’s lobbying to be a blatant example of ‘religionists…’”

To say in one breath it doesn’t matter either way (i.e., whether the FIC’s involvement was a reaction/defense or an instigation/offense), then in the next breath state a position that requires it to be one way (an instigation), shows you’re unable to defend your position, & have resorted to ill logic.

“I was thinking ‘Deist’.”

Think whatever you’d like; then see if can find any reference to “Supreme Judge of the world” (or even simply “Supreme Judge”) on http://www.deism.com or by any of the American government’s framers apart from the Judeo-Christian Bible. A fundamental tenet of deism is the non-interaction of its false deity with the deity’s alleged creation. No known purpose; no known standard by which anyone could or will be judged. Deists & atheists abhor the notion of being accountable to an objective standard! After you’ve exhausted Google, I’d invite you to peruse Genesis 18:25, 1Samuel 2:10, 1Chronicles 16:33, Psalms 96:13/98:9, Ecclesiastes 3:17, Isaiah 33:22, Joel 3:12, Acts 17:31, 2Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 12:23, Revelation 19:11, et al.

“The ‘Year of our Lord’ looks to be merely a common manner of dating … and is, thus, not an exclusively Judeo-Christian principle.”

I didn’t base my argument on a single phrase or single person or single theology, but on the collective context of the phrases I cited, which were agreed upon & accepted at the founding of the USA, thereby proving my point that it’s irrational to suggest someone’s trying to “push” these principles “into government affairs”. The reason there were so many Magna Cartas is because King John gaveth, & King Whoever tooketh away whenever he jolly well pleased. The US Constitution is impotent apart from a very real, very authoritative, very supreme Judge who alone is capable of establishing “unalienable” rights. Only the Judeo-Christian deity (Jesus Christ) fits that description.

“Even I use the “AD” abbreviation on this blog on occasion!”

Yes, you also breathe air created by God. The fact that you use Christian things like air & AD doesn’t mean you’re supporting Christianity; it just means you’re an ungrateful person who doesn’t understand what he believes. Example: If you really believed this universe were the product of random processes, & really cared about your relatively short existence, you’d be sweating bullets not knowing whether your next breath would be full of poisonous gas or fresh air. However, I would argue that you (at least sub-consciously) know God purposely & actively upholds the universe, & therefore take air for granted.

“What does reasonability have to do with neutrality?”

If you believe in neutrality, you’re being unreasonable because it’s impossible to uphold a neutral position (e.g., that you’re not a religionist trying to push a non-Judeo-Christian belief into government affairs).

“When personal beliefs become actions representing the views of a government, they become actions representing the views of a government. I do not see how that is special pleading.”

That’s because you just made a generic statement, yet you’re arguing from an atheistic bias. I’ll get specific by putting these 2 phrases in your mouth:

1) When a Christian belief becomes an action representing the view of a government (e.g., showing public-school students Christian icons & literature), it becomes an action representing the view of a government that is unconstitutional & a horrendous misuse of tax money.

2) When an atheistic belief becomes an action representing the view of a government (e.g., teaching children their ancestors randomly evolved from inorganic material), it becomes an action representing the view of a government that is constitutional & an appropriate use of tax money.

Special pleading. That’s why I don’t support the concept of public schools (because doing so encourages a nonsensical, non-Christian bias that should be expunged from government). I do support the concept of privately funded schools that could promote any particular doctrine (Islam, Hinduism, atheism, or any contradictory mixture thereof). That’s what freedom is (or at least should be) all about in America.

“I see in that statement a conflation of practical and legal freedom.”

I was not aware of such a distinction. Can you give me an example of an illegal freedom? Are you arguing that people who commit crimes are not legally free to abide by the law? What’s an impractical freedom?

“I doubt students are legally free to skip school events without a parent’s excuse.”

Can you cite an example of a student being expelled or prevented from graduating because he/she did not attend a school event (being distinct from a graded class for which the student receives course credit)? For example, is there any school, public or private, that has ever denied a student a diploma for not attending a graduation ceremony? Or a pep rally for a homecoming football game? Or an “unconstitutional” pro-Christian lecture?

(Note: I work with a PhD. man who is married to a PhD. wife, & they’re deliberately preventing one of their children from attending a lower math class at a public school because they want him to be enrolled in a higher-level one. The principal is threatening to expel the student for not attending that class, but doesn’t seem to have a legal basis since the student isn’t technically enrolled in the class. The school simply refuses to enroll him in the higher class citing silly policies.)

“You seem to have a very expansive definition of religion… Can you describe what that definition is?”

re-li-gion. noun. A set of beliefs by which a rational person decides how to act.

Religious people act consistently with their beliefs; whereas a non-religious person acts randomly, in which case they’re deemed mentally unstable (e.g., someone who has difficulty with basic survival tasks such as eating & hygiene). Whether a particular religion recognizes a deity or deities as its governing principle is no different than a religion (such as atheism or agnosticism) that relies upon a non-deity such as a political entity (social laws established & enforced by a government) or the person’s ego (I’m hungry, therefore I eat; I want, therefore I steal; I hate, therefore I kill; I’m lazy, therefore I panhandle). This choice of a deity is best confined to the term “theology” (emphasis on theos), not “religion” (a generic term based on activities such as speaking or binding depending on how you trace its etymology).

In this sense, your term “religionist” is only useful with an adjective qualifying the belief-set (Christian, Buddhist, atheistic, whatever). Your term “non-religionist” could best be applied to someone who doesn’t know what they believe (distinct from most agnostics who typically know what they don’t believe or refuse to openly acknowledge what they do believe). I think a more common term for “non-religionist” would be “confused person” (which would be consistent with their inconsistent & often-contradictory positions, such as supporting abortion but protesting capital punishment, or collecting taxes from productive citizens & redistributing it to lazy welfare recipients, or teaching Darwinian evolution in Science classes even though it contradicts natural laws, but preventing the teaching of Biblical creation even though it harmonizes with natural laws).

Most published definitions will involve the phrase “especially … blah, blah, blah … deity/supernatural”; however, every major definition I see online involves a set of beliefs, from which flow all actions including organized practices peculiar to a chosen doctrine/theology such as Friday/Saturday-night beer drinking parties, or Sunday afternoons spent positioned in front of a high-definition, big-screen altar showing a football worship service (a.k.a. “the game”). Because most religions involve a deity, people get the skewed misperception that it only involves deities.

I knew from the outset that you used “religionist” in a restrictive sense meaning anyone who believes in a supernatural deity as opposed to atheists who don’t, & agnostics who don’t know for sure or are embarrassed to admit what they believe. However, all you’re doing is arbitrarily stipulating a definition whereby you segregate your deified self (where you’re your chosen authority) from people with supernatural authorities. I could just as easily stipulate that everyone else (including atheists) are religionists, but as a Christian I’m a non-religionist because all those other people are living artificially on false premises, whereas I know Jesus Christ is true, therefore worshipping him is natural & non-religious.

The definition I provided is objective & all inclusive because I’m anti-arbitrariness.

To say in one breath it doesn’t matter either way (i.e., whether the FIC’s involvement was a reaction/defense or an instigation/offense), then in the next breath state a position that requires it to be one way (an instigation), shows you’re unable to defend your position, & have resorted to ill logic.

-It does not matter whether FIC’s lobbying was a reaction or an instigation; it was still an offensive move with clearly religious (in the commonly used sense of the term) motives. I do not understand how that is ill logic.

The US Constitution is impotent apart from a very real, very authoritative, very supreme Judge who alone is capable of establishing “unalienable” rights. Only the Judeo-Christian deity (Jesus Christ) fits that description.

-Rather, it is impotent apart from the very real consent of both the vast majority of U.S. citizens and all the U.S. states to live under the national government established by the Constitution. The existence of the national government the Founding Fathers created does not depend on any supernatural being, though it has been influenced by belief in one.

If you really believed this universe were the product of random processes, & really cared about your relatively short existence, you’d be sweating bullets not knowing whether your next breath would be full of poisonous gas or fresh air. However, I would argue that you (at least sub-consciously) know God purposely & actively upholds the universe, & therefore take air for granted.

-This argument can be very easily reversed-if you really believed this universe was created by a god with the power to work miracles and change his mind so that he would inspire two contradictory testaments and a capacity for genocide, you’d be sweating bullets not knowing whether your next breath would be full of air at 800 degrees Celsius or breathable air. I, meanwhile, see no evidence that indicates the air I breathe would be suddenly turned to poison at any point in the recent future; thus, I take the air I breathe for granted.

I also find your use of the phrase “randomly evolved” somewhat strange, as, while the variations that led to the origin of life are, in a sense, random, all chemical change is very much influenced by the laws of chemistry, and is, thus, not random (i.e., uncertain to a degree to which predictability of its course is impossible).

My tentative definition of religion is the belief in and worship of one or more supernatural beings (using the term “beings” in the broadest sense) or beings that can use the supernatural to act. Religion, as defined by me, is not exclusively about false premises (which extend far beyond religion). I do not deify myself by using that definition, as I do not claim to have supernatural powers of any kind. I use the more general term “belief system” in place of “religion” as you define it, as using the term “religion” the way you do is bound to lead to confusion.

Also, Darwinian evolution does not contradict a single law of nature, while Biblical Creation can only occur with the presence of miracles, which are by definition supernatural, i.e., contrary to the laws of nature. My considerations of what is or is not a waste of taxpayer money can be considered “special pleading” by a certain definition of that phrase, as I do specially plead for evidence-based government positions.

Can you give me an example of an illegal freedom?

The freedom to own slaves.

Are you arguing that people who commit crimes are not legally free to abide by the law?

No.

What’s an impractical freedom?

The freedom to fly to the farthest edges of the galaxy in one’s lifetime.

You didn’t reverse it; you merely built a strawman fallacy that doesn’t represent my beliefs & relies upon false propositions (i.e., that the OT & NT are contradictory, & that God isn’t faithful/true). My argument relied upon your belief that the universe is the product of random processes (i.e., atheism = no purposeful creation by a Creator). For the record, I do sweat bullets, but only after doing an intense hi-rise stair climb! I fear God’s omnipotence, but don’t sweat bullets over it because I’ve accepted God’s gracious gift of atonement for me.

“…while the variations that led to the origin of life are, in a sense, random, all chemical change is very much influenced by the laws of chemistry…”

You don’t really understand the fact that a randomly produced universe cannot exhibit predictable behavior. Randomness cannot inherit the trait of predictability. Your acknowledgement that chemistry laws exist, & your assumption that you have the capability to “see” any patterns further supports my argument that you (unwittingly?) rely upon a Creator/Lawgiver, which contradicts every flavor of atheism. Only a Lawgiver can establish laws & allow freedom of thought within a law-governed universe (like a bird in a cage). Every physical event we perceive to be random in God’s universe can actually be described by complex equations. The only way you can escape this fact is by Special Pleading: you identify patterns as the product of laws, but religiously refuse to identify laws as the product of a supreme governor. Therein lies your fatal philosophical flaw.

“Darwinian evolution does not contradict a single law of nature…”

It violates biogenesis so its process could never have begun (the equivalent of a perpetual-motion machine), & it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (simple/disordered systems don’t gradually become more complex/ordered). The phony Santas we see each year in shopping malls propagating that fairytale are like anyone who teaches (any variant of) Darwinian evolution.

“The freedom to own slaves. … The freedom to fly…”

I see now that you’re equivocating passive “freedom” with active “action”, which is why I misunderstood your earlier comment about a conflation of freedoms. I was thinking of freedom in the strict sense of our main topic about what is legal/illegal per the Constitution, not of theoretically possible/impossible actions.

I understand you & your positions better as a result of this discussion. At this point I’d like to summarize the main topic in an effort to bring closure to it:

1) You’re bothered by government officials who believe in the equivalent of Santa Claus, yet you pay part of their salaries & submit to their authority because they govern a “a fantastic place to live in.” Had Nazi Germans been successful in their attempt to conquer the world, you would’ve been equally content.

2) You believe malicious killing of humans “is not completely ludicrous” as long as you personally don’t lose anything in the process.

3) You believe Christians “constantly keep trying to push the Christian god into government affairs“, yet you could not counter my point that our government was founded upon a set of principles exclusively Christian, & therefore it is impossible to “push” Christianity into a political system that exists because of it.

4) If public-school students are told they “can” get information about Christianity, you claim the teachers are establishing a religion; if the same students are dogmatically (without any empirical evidence) told they “must” believe their ancestors evolved from lifeless chemical elements, you claim the same teachers are not establishing a religion.

5) You believe that truthfully defending one’s position against a false charge is equivalent to making an offensive false charge; “it does not matter either way.” In your latest response you affirmed that this logic is not ill. (By the way, I hope you’ll be consistent & if you don’t agree with any of these summary points, admit that it does not matter either way instead of correcting me or stating I’m wrong.)

6) You believe it “is legally acceptable” for a government official to speak “in support of religion“, yet you believe it is not legally acceptable for public-school administrators to hold a graduation ceremony in a building with Christian icons.

7) You “do not consider proselytizing to schoolchildren on government property to be a form of ‘free exercise of religion’.” (If Santa Claus were reading this blog at the North Pole right now, he’d be shaking his head in disbelief.)

8) You believe some “nonsensical” judicial interpretations of our Bill of Rights are “worthy of support“. If you could’ve said this from the podium at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, you would’ve received a standing ovation.

9) You believe the U.S.A.’s existence does not depend on the Creator/God/Judge/Lord acknowledged by its founders as having created its territory, environment, & ancestors.

10) You believe that “unalienable” rights can be alienated by “the very real consent” of people. (Maybe this is what sci-fi geeks mean by “alien intelligence”!)

11) You believe in a Santa-Claus-like definition of “religion” that excludes your passionate, occasionally contradictory New Atheist set of beliefs, in which you play the role of supreme authority (i.e., the deity).

Since we’re in your forum, you’re welcome to have the last word on this discussion. Although I consider this case closed, I’d enjoy discussing others with you (as you’ve recently raised some debatable points pertaining to my friend, Dr. Millard, as well as the ancient-aliens video).

Since we’re in your forum, you’re welcome to have the last word on this discussion.

-I gladly will.

Although I consider this case closed,

-I do, too.

I’d enjoy discussing others with you (as you’ve recently raised some debatable points pertaining to my friend, Dr. Millard, as well as the ancient-aliens video).

-So will I.

You didn’t reverse it; you merely built a strawman fallacy that doesn’t represent my beliefs & relies upon false propositions (i.e., that the OT & NT are contradictory, & that God isn’t faithful/true).

-The propositions that the OT and NT are contradictory and that the biblical god is, assuming his existence, not certainly faithful throughout history are, it seems to me, reasonable conclusions from the biblical text.

For the record, I do sweat bullets, but only after doing an intense hi-rise stair climb!

-For me, a three-mile run or a very humid environment accomplishes the same.

It violates biogenesis so its process could never have begun (the equivalent of a perpetual-motion machine)

Abiogenesis is not the same thing as Darwinian evolution (Darwin, to my knowledge, never formally published a hypothesis of the processes of abiogenesis). The “Law of Biogenesis” is more an excellent rule of thumb rather than a law in the strictest sense; it might have been violated repeatedly before the completion of the conquest of the oceans by micro-organisms.

it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (simple/disordered systems don’t gradually become more complex/ordered)

-Really, Mr. Grena!? I wonder, then, how the American economy has developed from one of subsistence farming to one of commercial agriculture to one of industrial manufacturing. It must have been the invisible hand of God, I suppose, which assembled the skyscrapers of New York, the auto plants of Detroit and Dearborn, and every little house in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Only God, after all, is capable of violating nature’s laws! The increase in maritime trade in the 7th C BC also, must it not, have been the handiwork of the Omnipotent Creator? The industrialization accomplished by the atheistic communists of the Soviet Union in the 1930s must, I also presume, have been accomplished by the angels of Almighty YHWH for the betterment of the Jews living in the lands occupied by the Nazis toward the end of WWII.

Seriously, though, the first living organisms were formed from chemicals found in the ocean, and may have relied upon under-sea volcanic vents for a steady stream of molecules required for life. The fact no photographic record exists of the origin of the first life does not mean scientists can devote large chunks of their time into supernatural hypotheses regarding this origin, as there is no scientific consensus that there is any problem a supernatural explanation of which is the most likely one.

Only a Lawgiver can establish laws & allow freedom of thought within a law-governed universe (like a bird in a cage).

But that “Lawgiver” is not necessarily a god. It might as well be a completely impersonal random force. As I use the term “freedom” in many different ways (you did correctly interpret my use of the word in my third-to-final response to you on this thread), I would like you to know that I accept the case of the determinists against the concept of free will-it seems to me, as a physicalist, to be an impossibility.

Randomness cannot inherit the trait of predictability.

I don’t see why it cannot. Randomness, due to its allowance of a multitude of aimless options, might allow predictability to emerge. If it did not, it would not be randomness, as it would, paradoxically, allow predictability of its lack of predictability to emerge.

Had Nazi Germans been successful in their attempt to conquer the world, you would’ve been equally content.

2) You believe malicious killing of humans “is not completely ludicrous” as long as you personally don’t lose anything in the process.

-And as long as it is the most cost-effective and socially beneficial of all available options. I doubt I will support any malicious killing of humans in the recent future.

3) You believe Christians “constantly keep trying to push the Christian god into government affairs“, yet you could not counter my point that our government was founded upon a set of principles exclusively Christian, & therefore it is impossible to “push” Christianity into a political system that exists because of it.

-The fact that all the Founding Fathers, even the most liberal, had a certain hostility to atheism and a certain appreciation of the moral teachings of the Gospels’ Jesus does not mean there are any exclusively Christian principles in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

4) If public-school students are told they “can” get information about Christianity, you claim the teachers are establishing a religion; if the same students are dogmatically (without any empirical evidence) told they “must” believe their ancestors evolved from lifeless chemical elements, you claim the same teachers are not establishing a religion.

-I have suspicions that you are referring to the Dover, PA, case. The empirical evidence for chemical abiogenesis is the absence of evidence for all other hypotheses. Besides, the evidence for any specific mechanism for abiogenesis is not sufficient for the establishment of any such mechanism as fact or as something students should be required to learn.

You believe that truthfully defending one’s position against a false charge is equivalent to making an offensive false charge;

-That was for a specific purpose; that of demonstrating religionists (by my definition) do, indeed, try to push the Christian god into government affairs. Truthfully defending one’s position against a false charge was equivalent to making an offensive false charge for my purpose, as both would have (at least, for me) been examples of religionists pushing the Christian god into government affairs. As I have different purposes when I am responding to your points, truth and falsehood do matter when I am responding to your points.

I agree with #6 as long as the word “visible” is added before “Christian”. I agree with #7, although I do not see what Santa Claus has to do with anything there. I agree with #8, although liberals, especially those at Pharyngula, tend to have a strong insistence on the appearance of logical consistency, as they frequently and unconvincingly deny all contradiction between their strong opposition to economic freedom and strong support for personal freedom. I do not have such a strong insistence on logical consistency (or even the illusion of it) in matters of negative liberties. I tend to treat negative liberties on an ad hoc basis. I fully agree with #9 and #10 (examples of this include the Sedition Act of 1798 and the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917). I do not believe my definition of religion is “Santa-Claus-like”; it, unlike yours, is consistent with the term “religion”‘s general usage today. I also do not use as broad a definition of the term “deity” as you seem to use.

Hold the phone! The debate is not finished! You seem to have changed your definition of religion from the time you wrote “Evolution Science”; you state there “Observational science is not a religion unless you worship what you observe, or more specifically, what you wish you could observe.” (pgs 11-12). Do you have another unconventional definition for me or am I to assume you’ve changed your views on the definition of religion?